- “Lawyer sues 20-year-old student who gave a bad Yelp review, loses badly” [Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica]
- Gown makers’ associational liberty not to sell to Trump family should also protect florist Barronelle Stutzman [Stephanie Slade/Reason; Eugene Volokh on legal treatment of private discrimination based on political belief or association]
- What to expect from Trump on legal policy: Harvard Law panel with Adrian Vermeule, Cass Sunstein, Andrew Crespo;
- More on new Jonathan Adler book on business and the Roberts Court [Bainbridge]
- Edelson class action firm, discussed here before, files vibrator data privacy suit [Chicago Tribune]
- “Legal Theory Lexicon: Libertarian Theories of Law” [Lawrence Solum]
Filed under: discrimination law, Supreme Court
5 Comments
The entry about the gown makers appears to reference a piece by Eugene Volokh on legal treatment of private discrimination based on political belief or association, but there is no link.
Is there a link missing to this: “Eugene Volokh on legal treatment of private discrimination based on political belief or association” in the second story?
Just wondering.
Sorry, link here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/25/can-businesses-refuse-to-serve-or-employ-trump-supporters/?utm_term=.9cc67881272d
It is a bit different. We have a societal norm that people cannot discriminate on the basis of a few things, including race and, apparently, sexual orientation. The reason is that such discrimination is pervasive and undermines the fairness of our society.
So, there are two questions. First, should we as a society strive to have government stop discrimination of any kind (including race)? Second, if so, which discrimination should we strive to stop?
Certainly, it is impossible to stop all discrimination. As an example, should we make it illegal to discriminate based on wealth? If so, how can we tell a poorer person they cannot have the same Rolex that a richer person has? That, my friends, would be communism (as distinguished from what Sanders supports, i.e., socialism).
Re the vibrator suit: More disturbing than the lawsuit itself are the facts that 1) someone felt the need to make an app to go with a vibrator, and 2) someone else felt the need to use the app.